Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
---- In-universe categories Subspace communication To replace Template:Subspace, unless it could be edited into "technology" and "types of communications" sections. --LauraCC (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC) category=Subspace category=communications technology --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, February 1, 2017 (UTC) I've left off sortkeying some of the ones in category "subspace" that I recognize as communication related until the category idea is rejected or accepted. --LauraCC (talk) 17:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not exactly clear on why it needs replaced, unless we're on a mission to eliminate all of these navigational-type templates. I wouldn't be opposed to a category of "Subspace communications" for these articles as a sub-cat of "Communications technology", but I don't really know that it's necessary. I'd like to hear some other opinions. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Those that are more like a diagram/table and less like a long list, such as Template:Enterprise conn officers are fine. My problem with the subspace communications one is that it's not organized like that. It's just an alphabetical list. --LauraCC (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :That's exactly what it is, an alphabetical list linking articles in two distinct categories: "Subspace" and "Communications technology". It *has* grown longer over time from when it was first implemented, though, so it *may* be time to retire it in favor of another approach. Anyone else? -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Support. - 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC) :::I'm not entirely convinced. I think it is fine as is. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:56, January 23, 2018 (UTC) Okay, so we have a maybe, a yes, and a no. If you don't count me, it's tied. TrekFan, do you have any reasons why you like it as is? --LauraCC (talk) 15:02, April 6, 2018 (UTC) Eating establishments There sure are an awful lot of restaurants and bars in the DS9 establishments and Earth establishments categories. --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, May 5, 2017 (UTC) :Support the idea but Oppose about the name. Any better category name? Tom (talk) 12:01, May 7, 2017 (UTC) My first instinct is "Restaurants"...but what about the jumja stick kiosk? --LauraCC (talk) 16:36, May 9, 2017 (UTC) ::If you add hotels then that's , I suppose. Can't imagine the people in Star Trek ever using that term though. -- Capricorn (talk) 07:50, May 10, 2017 (UTC) :::An "eatery" is any "informal" place to eat, while a "dining establishment" is any place you can eat dinner, and generally implies a "fine" in front of it when compared to the low end of what eatery covers. Since this category is clearly not going to replace the above mentioned categories, and one can only assume it would be in the establishments category, I don't think we need to overthink this and create multiple categories based on the minutia of the many, many terms used for "place where you can buy ready to eat things for your food hole" in the English language. While I'm pretty opposed to the "eating" option, any of the other ones would be fine whenever someone gets around to doing the actual work for the suggester. - 08:12, May 10, 2017 (UTC) "Culinary establishments"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:42, June 22, 2017 (UTC) :::: Though I haven't seen the complete list of what is proposed to go in this category, but "restaurant" applies to every example listed thus far. By definition a restaurant (and by default an "eatery") is simply: "a business establishment where meals or refreshments may be procured", and as such a "bar", a "food kiosk", a "café", "Ten Forward", and the "Replimat" are all types of restaurants. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:03, June 26, 2017 (UTC) Borg spatial designations Subcat of "Regions" and "Borg". There are a heaping helping of grids listed on the above page. --LauraCC (talk) 16:41, August 2, 2017 (UTC) Having them all in one one category allows non-grids to be included too. Or we could template this, I suppose. --LauraCC (talk) 17:34, February 24, 2018 (UTC) Sleep We have Category:Death for death-related items. What about a category for "sleep"? Here is a list of the sleep-related items I've compiled. * Alarm clock * Alpha-wave inducer * Alpha wave * Bed * Bedding * Bedroom * Bedtime/Nap time * Blanket * Crib * Delta sleep * Delta-wave inducer * Delta wave * Directed dreaming * Dolbargy sleeping trance * Dormancy period * Dream * Dreamcatcher * Exhaustion * Eyelid * Hibernation * Hibernation pod * Hypnagogia * Hypnosis * Insomnia * Lucid dream * Lullaby * Mattress * (Warm) Milk * Milk toddy * Nap * Night * Night cap * Nightgown * Nightmare * Pajamas * Pillow * Quarters * Rapid eye movement * Regeneration * Rock-a-bye Baby * Sedative ** Ambizine ** Anesthizine ** Axonol ** Dylamadon ** Felicium ** Improvoline ** Kayolane ** Melorazine ** Merfadon ** Neuro-sedative ** Sonambutril ** Terakine ** Tetrovaline * Sheets * Sleep * Sleep, Little Warrior * Sleep disorder * Sleeping area/space * Sleeping bag * Sleeping Beauty * Sleep mask * Sleep cycle * Sleeper ship * Sleepwalking * Sleeping mat * Somnetic inducer * Snoring * Tent * Trance * Yawn --LauraCC (talk) 19:32, August 23, 2018 (UTC) It would also be a subcat of Category:Biology, just as death and sex already are. --LauraCC (talk) 18:23, September 18, 2018 (UTC) Sedative could have its own category, or navbox template. --LauraCC (talk) 21:04, February 1, 2019 (UTC) Which of the above two methods I/we should choose to classify sedatives is the sticking point here. --LauraCC (talk) 15:01, April 30, 2019 (UTC) Fabrics category=fashion category=materials ordermethod=title namespace= Subcat of fashion and materials. For all fabrics out of which clothing, blankets, etc is made. --LauraCC (talk) 17:50, September 13, 2018 (UTC) Intelligence agencies Currently there are 19 listed at intelligence agency. Since these are not exactly law enforcement agencies, they don't belong in that category, yet should have their own complementary category to the existing Category:Law enforcement agencies. --Alan (talk) 14:07, March 6, 2019 (UTC) :Reasonable. Support, though keep the list there to show which planet/species each originates from (the names of some don't make that clear). --LauraCC (talk) 17:28, March 7, 2019 (UTC) Law enforcement officers Also I believe I brought up a suggestion for law enforcement officers in the past, but I think the biggest concern was not to have it be inundated with all of the Starfleet security officers that probably qualify, in a category originally intended to collect the upwards of 20 "civilian", non-military, non-Starfleet quote unquote police officers it was originally intended to highlight. Keeping that in mind, perhaps we should establish a category for Starfleet security personnel (<-- since we're already making that distinction here as an individual thing) and subcat that into the proposed law enforcement officer category as well as the current Starfleet operations personnel category. --Alan (talk) 14:07, March 6, 2019 (UTC) :Support. --LauraCC (talk) 17:28, March 7, 2019 (UTC) ::Wouldn't it be better to limit this to just the "police", even when they were called something else because of translated alien language, assuming that the intention isn't to include wardens and other non-police law enforcement officers. My concern about bloat wasn't just limited to Starfleet Security, but that all Starfleet personnel fit the general "law enforcement" description. Only MPs and Starfleet Security fit the description of "police personnel" as far as I can tell, and that avoids the other issues, assuming that there isn't some "canon" term problem there. - (on an unsecure connection) 22:05, March 8, 2019 (UTC) Culinary techniques A subcat of "skills" and "foods and beverages", for techniques which fall into both. category=skills category=foods and beverages ordermethod=title namespace= --LauraCC (talk) 16:08, April 17, 2019 (UTC) :Oppose, nav template at best, and most of these shouldn't be in F&B based on its scope, and the one that should shouldn't be grouped with the most of the rest. Also, there are plenty of categories here that need creation before we need another one with less than 20 pages. - 04:11, April 18, 2019 (UTC) Can you explain why they shouldn't be? Cooking techniques are food-related. --LauraCC (talk) 15:28, April 23, 2019 (UTC) :F&B isn't for things related, it's for things that are the subject. The page subject IS the category. The Enterprise IS a starship, Pluto IS a planet, while catering IS NOT a food and/or beverage. We might let a few relate pages in a IS category here and there, but there are too many in F&B, and the solution to that isn't isn't another small sub-category. - 07:25, April 24, 2019 (UTC) ::Gee, let's just put it under skills then, that's hardly a dealbreaker there, in fact since they're curently under F&B it's technically an improvement. These things are tightly and coherently related, and distinct from others in their current category, so the proposed subdivision makes perfect sense (the hypothetical nav template on the other hand feels like a boondoggle), and there might be less then twenty but there's still a category's worth. Also Archduk3, I respect your insight when it comes to this kind of deep level strategic thinking tremendously, but I'm not sure why I should care if this is ahead of some conception of a roadmap. This is a wiki after all, unevenness is inherent. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:11, April 28, 2019 (UTC) :Since I'm opposed to both the location and content of this category, I'm inclined to say that "just" lumping everything currently with these two categories together in a new one is a bad idea, and that some thinking is required for a better solution. I don't have a better idea right now that doesn't involve the word victual somewhere, but I would by the time someone else got around to creating all the other categories LauraCC suggests and then never makes. - 14:35, April 28, 2019 (UTC) Pre-Starfleet Human colonies I was rewatching discovery and realized that there have been several Star Trek episodes where the protagonists find a colony that was formed from abducted humans. I figured I would put these colonies into a single category. I know the name isn't particularly good and I am open to better names. Here are some suggested pages that would be in it: * The 37's (I couldn't find the planet) * Terralysium * Skagaran colony * Amerind * Terra Nova * Gaia Technically an alternate timeline, possibly another category * Omega IV I guess technically not true but their history is so similar Oldag07 (talk) 14:32, July 27, 2019 (UTC) :Oppose. The name is not great, but the scope is worse. Starfleet isn't the "arm" of any of the Earth governments that is responsible for colonization. This would work better as a navigation template since that allows for context, assuming we need this at all. - 19:54, July 28, 2019 (UTC) ::Comment. That is a pretty good idea. Anyone have a problem with a navigation template? Oldag07 (talk) 20:05, July 28, 2019 (UTC) :::No, I don't. --LauraCC (talk) 16:18, July 30, 2019 (UTC) ::::I do. You can make a million interesting lists of certain kind of this or that, but that doesn't mean there's use for easy navigation between them. Also Omega IV most definitely does not belong in the list you've made, and nor does Gaia really. Plus, you need a much better defined scope then "Pre-Starfleet Human colonies" because that title would imply that many of these might also belong there. BTW, the planet from the 37's that you couldn't find is documented here. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:34, July 31, 2019 (UTC) :::Kidnap/marooning colonies? Or something to that effect - with the colonists having no choice in the matter. --LauraCC (talk) 15:15, August 23, 2019 (UTC) The "million different interesting things" make good categories. But I digress. Non-traditional human colonies? Oldag07 (talk) 15:42, August 27, 2019 (UTC) Production POV categories Unreleased novels There is Category:Unreleased video games, so I think a similar cat for unreleased novels as subcat of Category:Novels would make sense. The first that come to mind are those alternate reality novels which got cancelled, but I think there are a few more. Kennelly (talk) 15:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC) :Support. Maybe a list would be helpful though. Tom (talk) 19:11, February 9, 2018 (UTC) :Have to withdraw my vote and change to oppose. We already have this site which is a good article and collection in my opinion. I don't see the need of a category which would list around five of six articles. Tom (talk) 21:07, February 20, 2018 (UTC) ::The undeveloped novel and reference book page actually makes me think this would be a good idea, since there are also redirects that would fit into this category, beyond the few pages we already have, so support. - 06:37, March 14, 2018 (UTC) Archival footage performers I noticed that Leonard Nimoy is listed as a Discovery performer now. Having in addition "archival footage performers" would cover the use of footage in both DIS and TOS's episodes, as well as actors in scenes, for instance, used in , whose characters only appear in that episode by virtue of old footage from previous episodes. --LauraCC (talk) 15:49, May 8, 2019 (UTC) :Oppose. A category provides no context and the scope is unwieldily and unhelpful. Should be a page if anything, but this name is horrid. - 06:48, May 9, 2019 (UTC) What would you suggest instead? --LauraCC (talk) 16:56, May 21, 2019 (UTC) "Performers who appeared in archival footage"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:33, July 30, 2019 (UTC) :Why are you excluding voice over? - *''' 19:45, August 21, 2019 (UTC) Not intentionally. "Performers who appeared in archival material"? --LauraCC (talk) 14:58, August 23, 2019 (UTC) Internal production documents I suggest that we have a category for documents and reference works written for internal use in Star Trek TV and film production. This category would contain Star Trek is..., Star Trek: The Next Generation Writers'/Directors' Guide, Star Trek: The Next Generation Writers' Technical Manual, Star Trek: Voyager Writers/Directors Guide, Star Trek: Voyager Technical Manual, and any other such documents created and used by production personnel, and not intended for wider distribution to the public. (As an aside, do we know whether manuals/"Bibles" like this were created for TAS, DS9 and/or ENT? For the current Secret Hideout productions, I'd imagine that any such documents, if they exist, would be regarded as confidential, but time will tell.) At the moment, Star Trek is... is in Category:Production, and the others are in Category:Reference books. The category I propose could be placed in both as a subcategory. The name could be '''Internal production documents or simply Production documents, or Internal reference works or production reference works if "documents" seems too broad. (We don't need to invite the creation of pages for every memo Leonard Maizlish sent on Gene Roddenberry's behalf.) We also would want to be clear that the category does not include scripts. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:51, August 23, 2019 (UTC) :Neutral – While I see no burning need for the category (yet), I'm in itself not opposed to the idea, and have a slight preference for production reference works as it implies the non-inclusion of memos, and agree with your notes on Star Trek is..., and scripts (which, when added, should IMO be added as behind-the-scenes info to their respective episodes/films). As for the "Bibles" on DS9, ENT and TOS for that matter (the famed original "Writer's Bible", The Star Trek guide), that is a given, as I've seen them (or copies thereof) offered on eBay, though the 12-page Braga/Berman written ENT one is exceptionally hard to come by, possibly due to the bad reception of the series at the time. TAS I'm not aware of and doubt if one even exists, nor am I aware of tech manuals for either DS9 or ENT; while "logic dictates" that one should exist, I've never seen one for DS9 (and I've extensively searched for it, as I own the other two), and very much doubt if one was ever written for ENT, likely due to the fact that tech manual co-author Rick Sternbach was not involved with ENT, which would also explain the potential absence of a DS9 tech manual, as Sternbach was only, albeit very extensively, involved in the pilot episode of that series. A Star Trek II Writer's/Director's Guide bible exists though, which is reproduced in its entirety in Star Trek Phase II: The Lost Series. Another document that should be added to the array is "Enterprise" Flight Manual, in effect the first known internal tech manual...--Sennim (talk) 08:32, August 23, 2019 (UTC) Agreed on including "Enterprise" Flight Manual; I meant to include it myself but forgot. And I think I had mentally conflated The Star Trek guide with Star Trek is.... If and when we create a page for that, we’ll have to make sure to distinguish it from The Star Trek Guide with something other than capitalization. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 13:32, August 23, 2019 (UTC) ::Seems to be a step in the right direction. --LauraCC (talk) 15:08, August 23, 2019 (UTC) :Given the issue some further thought; if decided upon the creation of the cat, it should IMO be disambigued as "Reference works (production use)" , not "production" only, as it can be misconstrued as also including commercial books like the various The Making of... books, and also in order to stay in front of potential future specific reference book cats – a "Category:Reference books (companions)" comes to mind actually. Furthermore when the The Star Trek guide page is created, I propose the The Star Trek Guide page to become renamed/disambigued to The Star Trek Guide (Amereon), as the latter is, in all honesty, a rather obscure one...--Sennim (talk) 13:15, August 28, 2019 (UTC) The potential for confusion with reference works about production is why I suggested the category name include "internal". After all, we know that some works created for commercial/general readership were subsequently used by production staff (the various editions of the Star Trek Encyclopedia come to mind). The distinguishing feature of this category should be that the works were created for the use of staffers working on Star Trek TV shows and/or films. As for the proposal of "Reference works (production use)", do we generally use parentheses to indicate a subcategory like that? I don’t see that elsewhere in a quick browse through the category tree, but perhaps I’m not looking in the right place. (Is there a way to see all categories at once?) Personally, I don’t like the look of parentheses in a category, as if it were a sort of disambiguation; I’d prefer something like "Internal production reference works" or even the (wordy but clear) "Reference works created for internal production use". What name do others prefer? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 14:48, August 28, 2019 (UTC) :If others agree with your assessment, then I'd suggest the cat to be called "Production use reference works" or "Production created reference works". Btw, parenthesized cats are in wide use in the image categories--Sennim (talk) 15:18, August 28, 2019 (UTC) ::The full category tree can be viewed . It is general practice to not use disambiguations in the main and production categories unless they are required, while the maintenance categories do use them for subdivisions of a single topic. ::Categories shouldn't start so specific to the point of excluding similar items, but rather be as general as possible and then be narrowed down with subcategories if they are needed. With that in mind, "Production documents" is fine, provided it is under reference books and production material, and if further subcategories are needed then that should become apparent after the category is created. ::Also, stop creating links for suggestions, it just makes work for later. - * 15:36, August 28, 2019 (UTC) Streaming companies I propose a separate category for streaming companies alongside Category:Broadcasters under which such companies are currently catted. Granted, their are similarities, but their are also two major differences which IMHO warrants the creation of a separate category: *1)Access to shows seen on the classic broadcasters are limited to the by them assigned time-slots, whereas shows on streamers are accessible at will and at any time *2)Perhaps even more pertinent, shows on broadcasters are more-or-less free, if one is to discount the generic taxes and/or license fees (in essence a tax itself), whereas a separate subscription fee has to be paid for each and every single streaming service and this is, contrary to the taxation, entirely voluntary. Case-in-point for us: broadcaster CBS Studios vs streamer CBS All Access. A proposal to also reflect the changes in the modern digital era--Sennim (talk) 12:44, August 29, 2019 (UTC) Maintenance categories